STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION BOARD OF VETERINARY MEDICINE DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, 01-9936 PL Vv. Case No. 2006-036857 Petitioner, ane i BILLY E. HARPER, D.V.M. Ww A [Oi cd glk Respondent. ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINT Petitioner, DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION ("Petitioner") files this Administrative Complaint before the Board of Veterinary Medicine against BILLY E. HARPER, D.V.M. ("Respondent"), and alleges: 1. Petitioner is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of veterinary medicine, pursuant to section 20.165, Florida Statutes, and chapters 455 and 474, F lorida Statutes. 2. At all times material hereto, Respondent was licensed in the State of Florida as a veterinarian, having been issued license number 1801. 3. Respondent's address of record is 4515 SE Dixie Highway, Stuart, Florida 34997. 4. . On April 5, 2006, Lauren Ann Lough, owner of a three (3) year old spayed female rabbit named “Tuxedo,” telephoned the Respondent to discuss his knowledge and qualifications to handle and treat rabbits. The Respondent assured Ms. Lough that he was qualified. 5. On April 5, 2006, Respondent was presented with “Tuxedo” to for treatment and surgery on a possible abscess on Tuxedo’s lower jaw. 6. On April 5, 2006, Respondent performed a physical examination and diagnosed Tuxedo with a lower jaw abscess. 7. On April 5, 2006, Respondent did not perform or offer to the client a CBC, serum biochemistry panel, or urinalysis in order to diagnose Tuxedo’s condition. 8. The standard of care requires a veterinarian to conduct or offer to the client to conduct a CBC, Serum Biochemistry panel, and urinalysis of a rabbit in Tuxedo’s condition. 9. On April 5, 2006, Respondent did not conduct or offer to conduct a chest or skull radiograph of Tuxedo. . 10. The standard of care requires veterinarian to perform or offer to perform a chest radiograph and skull radiograph to diagnose a rabbit in Tuxedo’s condition. 11. | On April 5, 2006, Respondent lanced and drained the abscess. 12. On April 5, 2006, Respondent failed to perform or offer to perform a culture and sensitivity test on the abscess. 13. The standard of care requires that a culture and sensitivity test be conducted prior to administration of antibacterials. 14. Respondent’s failure to conduct or offer to conduct a culture and sensitivity test of Tuxedo’s abscess was below the standard of care for veterinary medical treatment of a rabbit in Tuxedo’s condition. 15. Respondent did not himself, or instruct Ms. Lough, to flush the surgical site multiple times daily until healthy granulation tissue appeared. 16. Respondent’s failure to flush, or instruct Ms. Lough to flush the surgical site multiple times daily fell below the requisite standard of care for veterinary medicine. 17. On April 5, 2006, Respondent sedated “Tuxedo” with Isofluorane anesthesia. 18. On April 5, 2006, Respondent administered an injection of Penicillin to Tuxedo. 19. Penicillin is not an appropriate antibacterial for use in rabbits and its use is below the standard of care for veterinary medical treatment of a rabbit. 20. The Respondent’s use of Penicillin in the treatment of Tuxedo fell below the requisite standard of care for veterinary medicine. 21. On April 5, 2006, Respondent administered an injection of Dibydrostreptomycin to “Tuxedo”. 22. Dihydrostreptomycin is not an appropriate antibacterial for administration to rabbits and it s use is below the standard of care for veterinary medical treatment of a rabbit. 23. Theuse of Dihydrostreptomycin in the treatment of Tuxedo fell below the requisite standard of care for veterinary medicine. 24. | Respondent hospitalized Tuxedo from April 5, 2006 until April 6, 2006. 25. On April 6, 2006, Respondent discharged “Tuxedo” with a prescription for Amoxicillin, to be taken orally. 26. On April 6, 2006, Ms. Lough questioned the Respondent’s use of Amoxicillin over Baytril. 27. Amoxicillin is not an appropriate antibacterial for use in rabbits and it is below the standard of care for the veterinary medical treatment of a rabbit. 28. The Respondent’s use of Amoxicillin in the treatment of Tuxedo was below the requisite standard of care for veterinary medicine. 29. On April 8, 2006, Ms. Lough returned to have “Tuxedo” re-examined by the Respondent. 30. On April 8, 2006, Respondent flushed and cultured the Rabbit’s wound and advised Ms. Lough no further visits were necessary unless the abscess began to reappear. 31. ‘On April 12, 2006, “Tuxedo” was returned to the Respondent because he was not eating and it was having diarrhea. 32. On April 12, 2006, “Tuxedo’s” surgical sight was still draining. 33. On April 12, 2006, the Respondent administered an injection of Baytril to Tuxedo. 34. The Baytril injection dosage administered by Respondent was too low to be effective. 35. The Respondent’s administration of an ineffective injection of Baytril fell below the requisite standard of care for veterinary medicine. 36. On April 12, 2006, the Respondent dispensed Baytril 22.7mg tablets for Ms. Lough to use at home. 37. The Baytril dosage disspensed by Respondent in tablet form was too low to be effective. 38. The Respondent’s prescription of an ineffective dosage of Baytril tablets fell below the requisite standard of care for veterinary medicine. 39. On April 12, 2006, the Respondent failed to address the rabbit’s diarrhea symptoms. 40. | Respondent’s failure to address “Tuxedo’s” diarrhea fell below the requisite standard of care for veterinary medicine. 41. The Respondent failed to follow up with the patient after the April 12, 2006 visit. 42. The Respondent’s failure to schedule a follow up visit for an animal in “Tuxedo’s” condition fell below the requisite standard of care for veterinary medicine. 43. On April 22, 2006, “Tuxedo” was taken to an emergency clinic, but died while in transport. 44. Respondent’s medical notes for the April 5, 2006 visit contain only a brief history and the patient’s weight. 45. Respondent’s medical records fail to indicate physical examination findings having been performed on April 5, 2006. 46. Respondent’s medical records failed to indicate how anesthetic was administered to “Tuxedo” on April 5, 2006. 47. Respondent’s medical records fail to take adequate surgical notes of the procedure performed on April 5, 2006. 48. Respondent’s medical records failed to indicate discharge instructions, including dispensing directions for Amoxicillin for April 6, 2006. 49. Respondent’s medical records failed to include hospitalization notes for April 6, 2006. 50. Respondent’s medical records failed include physical examination findings for examination performed on April 8, 2006. 51: | Respondent’s medical records failed to indicate the medication used to flush “Tuxedo’s” abscess on April 8, 2006. 52. Respondent’s medical records failed to indicate physical examination findings performed on April 12, 2006. 53. Respondent’s medical records failed to record the rabbit’s weight on April 12, 2006. 54. . Rule 61G18-18.002(1), Florida Administrative Code, states that “there must be an ‘individual medical record maintained on every patient examined or administered to by the veterinarian except as provided in (2) below, for a period of not less than three years after date of last entry. The medical records shall contain all clinical information pertaining to the patient with sufficient information to justify the diagnosis or determination of health status and warrant any treatment recommended or administered. 55. Rule 61G18-18.002(3), Florida Administrative Code, requires that “[m]edical records shall be contemporaneously written and include the date of each service performed. They should contain the following information: name of owner or agent, patient identification, record of any vaccinations, complaint or reason for provision of services, history, physical examination, any present illness or injury noted, provisional diagnosis or health status determination.” 56. Rule 61G18-18.002(4), Florida Administrative Code, requires that medical records must also contain the following information if these services are provided or occur during the examination or treatment of an animal or animals: Clinical laboratory reports, consultation, treatment — medical, surgical, hospitalization, and drugs prescribed, administered, or dispensed. COUNT ONE 57. Petitioner realleges and incorporates the allegations set forth in paragraphs one (1) through fifty-six (56) as though set forth herein. 58. Section 474.214(1)(r), Florida Statutes, states the following shall constitute grounds for disciplinary action “[b]eing guilty of incompetence or negligence by failing to practice medicine with that level of care, skill, and treatment which is recognized by a reasonably prudent veterinarian as being acceptable under similar conditions and circumstances.” 59. Based on the foregoing, Respondent violated section 474.214(1)(1), Florida Statutes, when he failed to flush the rabbit’s surgical wound daily, when he proscribed Penicillin, Dihydrostreptomycin, and Amoxicillin to a rabbit, when he failed address diarrhea symptoms, when he injection a ineffective dose of Baytril, when he proscribed and ineffective dose of Baytril, and when he failed to schedule a follow up visit for “Tuxedo.” Respondent is therefore subject to discipline by the Board of Veterinary Medicine pursuant to section 474.214(2), Florida Statutes. COUNT TWO 60. Petitioner re-alleges and incorporates the allegations set forth in paragraphs one (1) through fifty-six (56) as though set forth herein. 61. Section 474.214(1)(ee), Florida Statutes, states the following shall constitute grounds for disciplinary action “[flailing to keep contemporaneously written medical records as required by rule of the board.” 62. Based on the foregoing, Respondent violated section 474.214(1)(ee), Florida Statutes, by failing to keep adequate medical records during the treatment of “Tuxedo.” Respondent is therefore subject to discipline by the Board of Veterinary Medicine pursuant to section 474.214(2), Florida Statutes. Department of Business and Professional Regulation WHEREFORE, Petitioner respectfully requests the Board of Veterinary Medicine enter an order imposing one or more of the following penalties: revocation or suspension of the Respondent's license, restriction of the Respondent's practice, imposition of an administrative fine not to exceed $5,000 per violation, issuance of a reprimand, placement of the Respondent on probation, assessment of costs association with the investigation, imposition of any or all penalties delineated within section 455.227(2), Florida Statutes, and/or any other relief that the Board is authorized to impose pursuant to chapters 455 and/or 474, Florida Statutes, and/or the rules promulgated thereunder. d Signed this #2"day of Do senber, 2006, FILED AGENCY CLERK CURK Soyuhy Lo [Wetum eum DATE 1-2-2007 Counsel for the Department: Drew F. Winters Assistant General Counsel Florida Bar Number 0679941 Department of Business and Professional Regulation Office of the General Counsel 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-2202 DFW/ahs PCP date - 121-04 Drew F, Winters Assistant General Counsel ; Case # 2006-036857

Docket for Case No: 07-002236PL